Message84932
Just to make this clear, Aleksi is proposing close() should be called
automatically by some higher-level functionality whether a user has
overridden handle_close() or not.
With the updated asyncore warning suppression stuff, overriding
handle_close() for the sake of suppressing the warnings should no longer
be necessary.
While I can see that it would be *convenient* if close() was
automatically called, the method is called "handle_close()", and there
is an expectation about the implementation thereof. For example, you
call socket.recv() in handle_read(), you call socket.send() in
handle_write(), call socket.accept() in handle_accept(). Is it too much
to expect that a user will call .close() inside handle_close()?
The answer to that last question is a "no", btw. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2009-03-31 22:06:41 | josiahcarlson | set | recipients:
+ josiahcarlson, loewis, akuchling, calvin, klimkin, janssen, giampaolo.rodola, alexer |
2009-03-31 22:06:40 | josiahcarlson | set | messageid: <1238537200.97.0.460878119265.issue909005@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2009-03-31 22:06:39 | josiahcarlson | link | issue909005 messages |
2009-03-31 22:06:39 | josiahcarlson | create | |
|